This appeared in today's Kansas City Star. My former boss -- Sam Brownback -- enacted permitless concealed carry (aka Constitutional Carry). Prior to this statute, Kansas' AG issued CHPs to avoid abuses by local authorities as there were/are pro- and anti-gun counties in Kansas, as is true in Colorado. A similar bill is pending in Colorado, but is opposed by Dems, law enforcement and anti-gun groups who believe the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege and that all gun owners should be monitored. IMHO, the Colorado Constitutional carry bill has little likelihood of passage.

Also, in 2013, Kansas enacted a statute that prohibits public buildings from banning CHP holders (including the public and public employees who work in public buildings) from bringing firearms into the building unless the building manager could enact measures that ensured public safety in the building. Utah has a similar statute. So while "no guns" decals proliferate in Colorado, they were being scraped off doors in Kansas and Utah.

Kansans soon can carry concealed weapons without permits or training under a bill signed by Gov. Sam Brownback on Thursday.

The new law, which kicks in July 1, makes Kansas the sixth state to allow “constitutional carry.” It will allow Kansans 21 and older to carry concealed firearms regardless of whether they have obtained a permit.

Training still will be required for anyone who wants to carry a concealed gun in the 36 states that accept Kansas permits.

Brownback touted the importance of training, explaining that his youngest son took a hunter safety course this past week.

“It was an excellent course. He got a lot out of it. I got a lot out of it. And I want to urge people to take advantage of that,” said Brownback, who was flanked by Republican lawmakers and representatives from the National Rifle Association and Kansas State Rifle Association.

Asked why he did not think training should be required if it is valuable, Brownback said carrying a gun is a constitutional right.
“We’re saying that if you want to do that in this state, then you don’t have to get the permission slip from the government,” Brownback said. “It is a constitutional right, and we’re removing a barrier to that right.”

Sen. Oletha Faust-Goudeau, a Wichita Democrat, said she has concerns about safety, noting that law enforcement officials raised concerns about the lack of training.

“That’s a major responsibility to carry a gun, whether it’s concealed or not. And it’s scary,” Faust-Goudeau said. “I predict from the legislation that — and it’s going to go quick, it’s going to be July 1 — we’re going to see some accidents, possibly deaths.”

Rep. Travis Couture-Lovelady, a Republican from north-central Kansas, said the state had no significant problems with public safety since adopting concealed carry in 2006. He predicted the latest expansion would have little impact.
“We haven’t had any of the Wild West shootouts. We haven’t had any of the blood running in the streets that folks feared,” Couture-Lovelady said, adding that he did not attribute that to the training requirement.

“Training is an ongoing, personal responsibility. It’s not something the government can mandate,” he said. “… It’s not a ‘one size fits all’ when you talk about the lifestyle of carrying a gun.”

About 87,000 people hold concealed-carry permits in Kansas, according to the attorney general’s office. More than 17,000 of them are in Sedgwick County.

One of the most vocal critics of the legislation, Bill Warren, holds a concealed-carry permit. He has expressed concern about the safety impact on his Wichita movie theaters if people who have not gone through training bring in guns.

He probably will prohibit guns in his theaters.
“My No. 1 priority is the safety of our customers, and after we talk to our security we will make a decision before it’s enacted,” Warren, who donated and hosted events for Brownback’s gubernatorial campaign, said Thursday. “It makes things for the general population less safe.”

Patricia Stoneking, president of the Kansas State Rifle Association, praised the governor as a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.
Stoneking said the signing of the bill was the culmination of a 10-year plan by the group. She said the inclusion of the training requirement in the 2006 concealed-carry bill was “political horse trading” and said it was a compromise necessary to pass the legislation at that time.

Looking ahead, she said she wants to see one more major change: lowering the age to carry a concealed weapon to 18.
“Eighteen-year-olds are allowed to open carry, and they go to war and put their lives on the line to protect this country,” Stoneking said. “I believe we can lower the age to 18 at some point in the future. I think after everybody sees that there are not going to be any of the dire predictions coming true, and they relax a little bit, then we can talk about that.”

I have no clue about the details of the law in Kansas, but I suspect local law enforcement would not be too keen on prosecuting non-residents for an activity that was legal for residents. It would present an interesting "equal protection" case to criminally prosecute non-residents for something that was perfectly legal for residents. Kinda like trying to enforce different speed limits for residents and non-residents.

While the media writes articles expecting a negative public reaction, the reader comments are just the opposite. A couple examples posted in the minutes after the article appeared appear below. Worth perusing ...

" I say good for all the citizens of Kansas. You people have elected someone who stands for the Constitution. If only every state could elect someone with this caliber."

"Agree. All states should enact such legislation. If there is to be any kind of licensing, a license issued in one state should be recognized in all states like a drivers license. I am against licensing to carry. Thirty + years active U.S. Navy, Mike F"

" I was in the US Navy for ten years. I earned the honor of receiving an Expert Pistol Shot Medal. That wasn’t enough for the government though. I still had to pay the money, get a background check and take the class to carry concealed. Why is it that the government that qualified me for the medal and advanced me to a Top Secret Clearance still required a class and a background check? MONEY! That’s what it has always been about for them. The anti-constitution folks just jumped on the band wagon. I say “Good job Gov!”. Thanks for looking out for the people this time and not the states wallet."